In my last blog post, I described The Twitter Race, the game my Introduction to Translation into English students most enjoyed playing last semester, and I promised to follow-up with a post about the game my students enjoyed the least: Wikipedia Level Up. Since I’m presenting a paper about the games at the didTRAD Conference in Barcelona this afternoon, I think now is a good time to write this post, so I can share a few thoughts about why this game was not as effective as it could have been and how I will improve it in the future.

### Wikipedia Level Up

For this game, students had to edit and revise a translated Wikipedia article I had selected from a list of articles needing cleanup after French translation. To complete Level 1, students had to identify and correct at least five language errors in the English version, without consulting the source text. Once they had finished, they could then move on to Level 2, where they had to compare the French ST and English TT to identify and correct at least four transfer errors. Level 3 involved identifying at least three violations of Wikipedia’s core content policies, and Level 4 involved identifying and correcting at least four instances where the English translation did not conform to Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. To successfully complete each level, students had to show me the errors they had identified and the corrections they were proposing. I would then award points for each error they had correctly identified and resolved: they earned 1 point per Level 1 error, 2 points for Level 2 errors, etc.

Students could win either by completing all four levels in 45 minutes or by accumulating the most points in 45 minutes. This meant we could have multiple winners.

So what went wrong? Well, when designing this game, I had assumed students would try to get through the levels as quickly as possible, finding just the minimum number of errors (or perhaps one or two more to earn a few extra points) and then moving on–particularly since I had weighted the points to make Level 4 more lucrative. After all, a student who whipped through all four levels resolving just the minimum number of errors would finish with 38 points, whereas a student who stayed at Level 1 looking for as many errors as possible would have to find and correct 39 problems to beat their classmate. As a player, I would want to head to Level 4 as quickly as possible so I could accumulate points up to four times faster than students in lower levels and be guaranteed to win the game. As it turned out though, some students focused on correcting as many mistakes as possible mistake at each level, and since I had purposely chosen a translation that had a lot of problems (to give students a better chance of finding errors quickly), only 2 of the 10 students who attended class that day were able to win the game. When I surveyed my students about the games after the course had ended, I wasn’t surprised to read a comment that the Wikipedia Level Up game was too complicated to be easily completed in the time allowed.

For next year, I will double the time I had allotted for the game (from 45 to 90 minutes) so that students are better able to complete the existing levels. I will also add “Level 5: Enter your corrections into Wikipedia”, so students become more familiar with the platform, and a bonus “Level 6: Decide whether the translated content should be adapted to better target English-speaking readers” to help students develop their subject-matter expertise.

Finally, since the most important objective of this game is that students are exposed to as many aspects of Wikipedia translation as possible, I will change the criteria for winning the game so that points are collected only as an extra challenge: students will be trying to set a high score that future students may want to beat, but the points won’t count toward winning the game. Instead, students will win if they successfully complete all five levels within the allotted 90 minutes, and they will earn an additional 50 bonus points if they can complete the bonus round.

Next year, after I’ve implemented these changes, I’ll write a follow-up post about whether this game was more successful with my next group of students, and I’ll offer a few thoughts about how the rest of the games fared the second time around.